mbabker wrote:I haven't touched an extension since Joomla 3.6 and PHP 7.1 were the current releases. That extension will work on Joomla 3.9 and PHP 7.4. Because that extension's code structure follows best practices and did not make use of deprecated functionality (in Joomla or PHP), even as new deprecations have been introduced.

Yes, you may be sure about that for your extensions.. but how sure are you when it comes to the rest? the ones you did not create? but others?
How sure can the audience be?

Also interesting what @webdongle says...

webdongle wrote:Surely the 'test' of whether or not an extension is abandoned is the support.

Very true.. measured by an existing active support button (that for a change doesn't link to a 404) maybe?
still hard to check.... but at least is something...

mbabker wrote:there is no way a review on an older version is going to 100% reflect what a review on a newer release would look like.

Exactly.. .. as I think you should not compare one major release with another... it is different products... for that there are feature comparissons... but true, maybe the old reviews should be kept but then mention a date but also a version number the review is made on... this would then indeed be possible to be "calculated" in the score...but still, imho, out of date/EOL versions should not be in the count....

@webdongle... or to a "github issues list" with open-for-years issues...

But as I said, there are tons of ideas... all will have their downside too...

And I can understand there are a lot of developers with good extensions that do not have time and resources to go through all the hassle... but the time and resources of JED moderators is limited too.. all that can be automated is saving time...

Much like @mbabker I don't want to 'chase' after my extensions... but then again.. I do not publish them in the JED either...

As I wrote before.. no one is forced in anyway to do or change anything as we all are doing this in our spare time... I don't own anyones agenda... I can share my thoughts though... raw thoughts...

mbabker wrote:there is no way a review on an older version is going to 100% reflect what a review on a newer release would look like.

Exactly.. .. as I think you should not compare one major release with another... it is different products... for that there are feature comparissons... but true, maybe the old reviews should be kept but then mention a date but also a version number the review is made on... this would then indeed be possible to be "calculated" in the score...but still, imho, out of date/EOL versions should not be in the count....

The way your idea is coming across, you're making it seem that reviews should disappear as soon as a new version of an extension comes out. That should not happen, at all, regardless of what change you made in the version number. Reviews should stay available for the entire lifetime of the listing. It is up to the consumer to decide how relevant that review is to their decision making process, and the listing software should take steps to help the consumer make an informed decision (having the version that was reviewed would be a step in the right direction; reviews on JED and WordPress' plugins directory both lack a dedicated entry point and output for "I reviewed this version").

And yes, you do need to be able to compare something across major versions to be able to see how the extension has evolved over time. Do you not compare PHP 4 to PHP 5, or PHP 5 to PHP 7, or PHP 7 to the upcoming PHP 8? Do you not compare Joomla 1.0 to 1.5, or 1.5 to 2.5, or 2.5 to 3.x?

Apparently the system is designed to block reviews posted by bots. Are you sure you are not a bot?

Seriously, the system probably checks if bots and spammers have been blacklisted from the same range of IP addresses, "a shotgun approach when a pea rifle would suffice".

I stopped posting reviews years ago after my genuine reviews, based on first hand experiences, were blocked and my tickets brushed aside with "the system is always right" approach.

Now I have even less chance of getting any reviews past the automatic censorship because my ISP, China Telecom (ChinaNet), is at the top or the second in the list of the world's worst botnet infected ASNs...

Just for S&G, I logged into the internal Joomla VPN that's used to restrict some of the infrastructure admin access, and JED blocked submitting reviews from that.

Confirmed. JED's system sucks.

EDIT: Also, just saw the "a server is actively running on your desktop IP" part of the message after I logged out of the VPN, logged out of the JED, logged back in, and tried to go review again. If you're telling me that I can't write a review while I have Apache running on my local system, then I would like to upgrade my previous comment from "JED's system sucks" to "JED's system is beyond atrocious and the developer who implemented it should be fired".

I want to make two quick points: (1) I don't believe that people think my opinions count in this matter, and (2) the JED review system is broken.

I could be mistaken about point (1); I think everyone agrees about point (2).

A couple of months ago I wrote that I have "given up" on this discussion. There has not been much to read since then that has changed my view.

I used to believe that "reviews" were meritorious; that, if they were honestly-made, they assisted both the community at large and the developers who create products listed on the JED. As a consequence of this discussion topic and, to a very large extent, the convincing arguments put forward by @Webdongle, I have changed my view. I now consider that it would be a mistake to retain a "review system" as part of the JED because of the ability to destroy people's livelihoods through its abuse.

Late last week, in a landmark decision in the Australian federal court, the court ruled that it the owner of a "review system" must make available, to anyone who requires, all details of an anonymously-written review in the possession of the owner of that system. Regardless of the fact that, in this case, the "review system" owner is Google LLC, the decision sets a precedent whereby other courts could rule similarly under

Article 10(a) of the “Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters” done at The Hague on 15 November 1965 ...

No. This does not mean, or implies, any wrongdoing. It means that, a registered letter can be mailed to the registered office of OSM to demand that the custodian(s) of the JED service must provide to anyone who requests information about metadata relating to any review posted about any extension.

That's how the "Hague Convention" (to which the US is a signatory) has been interpreted by the court's ruling. One needs to read the court's ruling to understand how it could be used. You can find a layperson's summary of the case at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/ ... e/11963250

That's my understanding about how the ruling could extend to any "review" system.

I think this may not be what the JED team might be expecting. Again, that's all I think I need to say on the matter.

Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with -

a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,
b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination,
c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination.

It merely means I can legally complain and send this by mail..... and can hire a lawyer to help me in the case...

It doesn't say anything about local laws and regulations in relation to the actual cause.

But..... since there also is a lot of regulation stating that... if you offer your services in a country, targetted at an audience, public, business in that country, one has to obey the law(s) in that country.

I cannot tell for Oz, but in EU we do not have to go to the USA to haunt Google to hand over the data.... search results, reviews, maps, directions... all the services by Google are considered targeting EU so local EU law applies... and yes there is a lot of cases and disputes going on...

So when someone from the JED team say they can not give any details then if someone puts a request in writing the JED team must give that information?

It's not that simple. As I understand it, a request to hand over metadata held within a system can be made by posting a registered letter to the custodian of the data in the system. If the system resides within the jurisdiction of a signatory to the Hague Convention then a court within that same jurisdiction could force the custodian to hand over that data.

I'll offer you a simple case to consider. Someone posts a registered letter to OSM requesting metadata information about a "review". If OSM does not comply (or is unable to comply), a US court could subsequently serve notice on OSM compelling an explanation in respect of non-compliance with the request. I'm not predicting an outcome: I'm simply saying that, if JED contains a "review system" and if the system was abused and if someone wishes to seek legal redress for reputational and/or financial loss arising from the abuse of the "review system", things could get messy ... and unpredictable and costly for OSM. That's all I'm saying.

There are bigger technical problems to sort than a "can I send a letter abroad". Like... 99 out of 100 people cannot write a review or submit an extension.... the 1 person that has access is happy and won't complain..

...
Also states it is not responsible for the content and voting of the reviews...

But the JED team have the final decision if a review is published so are they not ultimately responsible for the content that they publish? And are they not (regardless of what they say) ultimately responsible for checking the content that they publish?

yes maybe so... and from this we know, since the JED can, may and will, they also can comply to any legal request to remove and/or hand over meta data when that is required...

So still, regardless of all kind of technical problems, I and a lot of others cannot even file a review, this is not the problem when it comes to the JED functionally.... how the team handles laws and ethics has not much to do with it.

@Webdongle: I'm not assuming anything. I'm trying to answer your questions. I'm just saying that, for as long as the JED permits "reviews", OSM is legally bound by the Hague Convention as the record-keeper of the data (including metadata) about the "reviews". That's all I'm saying.

There is no inconsistency with the JED Terms of Service (Section 10. Privacy) and a person's reasonable request to obtain information. The JED Terms of Service, basically, say that OSM will not "volunteer" information to third-parties (e.g for "marketing" purposes) but, if a reasonable demand is made for information (under the Hague Convention), then specific information will be handed over when requests are made for it.

If someone wants information about a "review" they can ask for it and OSM is legally bound to turn it over.

I don't really care that the JED is broken, that reviews don't always work. I don't even care that we will never know the results of the "survey" that began this discussion; in fact, I think the survey was probably a waste of time.

It has not to do with "serve" as in web server, hosting server" or any other computing server.
This convention has to do with "serve" as in "physically hand out to" your judicial document to another party in another country and the guarantee that the destination State will ensure.